#302 The Fight for Free Soil & Sovereignty w/ Karla Lems

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:01):
Good morning.
Happy Thursday, everybody.
Welcome to the state of freedom and a special shout out to any voice of the people USAradio listeners who are joining us this morning.
We are so pleased to be joined by a special guest today.
Karla Limbs is a state representative in South Dakota.
She's a small business owner and a farmer, and she's running for lieutenant governor.

(00:24):
She's led the charge in South Dakota.
in getting eminent domain for CCS killed in the state.
It was a hard fought battle, but they prevailed.
So we clearly have a lot to learn from her.
We're so excited to hear what she has to say this morning.
And of course, we will also um be giving an overview of what all happened at thelegislature this week, the good, the bad and the ugly ah per usual.

(00:51):
Before we get into all of that craziness, let me read the scripture of the day.
It's Hebrews chapter 2 verse 11 and then 14 through 18.
And this is what it says.
Jesus the Holy One makes us holy and as sons and daughters, we now belong to his samefather.
So he's not ashamed or embarrassed to introduce us as his brothers and sisters for he hassaid, ah I'll skip that for he has said and I'll go down to 14.

(01:21):
It says,
Since all his children have flesh and blood, so Jesus became human to fully identify withus.
He did this so that he could experience death and annihilate the effects of theintimidating accuser who holds against us the power of death.
By embracing death, Jesus sets free those who live their entire lives in bondage to thetormenting dread of death.

(01:47):
For it is clear that he didn't do this for the angels, but
for all the sons and daughters of Abraham.
This is why he had to be a man and take hold of our humanity in every way.
He made us his brothers and sisters and became our merciful and faithful king-priestbefore God as the one who removed our sins to make us one with him.

(02:07):
He suffered and endured every test and temptation so that he can help us every time wepass through the ordeals of life.
And isn't it so good that
We just get to rest in the finished work of our faithful King and High Priest Jesus.
He made a way for us when there was no way to be in right relationship with the Father andwhen we believe that He is who He says He is and that He lived a perfect life on earth and

(02:34):
became the only acceptable sacrifice for our sin, which He took on Himself and then raisedHimself from the dead.
Can we just say, I mean, can we just stop and appreciate that He raised Himself from thedead?
That's like...
That's pretty stunning.
As Christians, we kind of roll through that statement and just think, yeah, he raised fromthe dead.

(02:54):
No, he raised himself from the dead um to bring, and he did it to bring the power ofresurrection life to us.
And I just want us to say that because he did that, we can confidently look at the daysahead and say, my God conquered death.
to restore me to my place of right relationship with him and inheritance.

(03:19):
So whom or what shall I fear?
And that's the attitude I want to have.
That's the attitude I would, you I think a lot of our listeners have.
Karla, that's the attitude you have, I believe for sure, because you've taken, you'vestared down some pretty dark forces.
So thank you for joining us and I just...

(03:39):
was really uh touched by that scripture this morning and really strengthened by it becausewe are in fierce times.
We are in fierce times, Danielle, but ah the scripture was so timely this morning.
think about it, and you're so right.
We do tend to gloss over things that are just so extraordinary in the scripture.

(04:02):
We gloss over it, and we don't really understand the deep import of it.
I mean, Jesus became fully human so that we could have a true advocate before the Father.
someone who understands us, someone who relates to us, someone who suffered the way thatwe do.
ah And so we do have a true advocate before the Father in Jesus.

(04:27):
uh you know, speaking of advocates, you know, when you read about Carl Ellens, I mean,it's like what she has done and other leaders in South Dakota with regard to this carbon
capture sequestration, the history of it is just extraordinary.
ah Karla, first of all, welcome to the state of freedom today.

(04:49):
What a privilege to have you with us.
Well, thank you.
I think I'm joining uh like-minded believers this morning, which is even greater thanfighting together on these constitutional issues.
Because we know that for such a time as this, God has a purpose and a plan.
And what we do here is we do what is right, true, and just to the best of our ability.

(05:13):
And then we leave the rest in God's hands, because He is going to do what He is going todo.
That is so true, Karla.
And what you just said, it reminds me of one of my favorite quotes to your John Adams orJohn Quincy Adams.
He said, you know, we do our duty and the results are up to God.
And in a certain sense, that takes a lot of pressure off of us because we're going to dowhat we're supposed to do and let God handle the results.

(05:40):
And I know that's what you've done in South Dakota and continue to do.
uh
It's so interesting about the history of carbon capture sequestration in South Dakota.
Can you talk a little bit about uh the ah political aspect of it?
Because my understanding is that there were a number of Republicans who were punished atthe polls because they did not do the will of the citizens.

(06:06):
And then a new crop of Republicans come in and y'all got it done at that point.
So
uh Tell us about that because the reason why I'm asking is that we may be in a similarsituation right here in Louisiana now, where we've had a number of Republicans who are uh
responsible for defeating some very good uh protections for private property when it comesto CCS and other issues.

(06:30):
And they may well be in trouble at the ballot box uh as well because of that, because ofthe outrage.
So tell us a little bit about the history of South Dakota and how you got to the pointwhere y'all actually got it accomplished.
Sure.
So I will back up.
We've been in this fight since about 2021.
And that was before I was in the legislature.
Some people think I got into the legislature for that fight and that's really not thecase.

(06:54):
I was very concerned about what was happening in around 2020.
I had already been involved in the Republican party in our county, but I was not anelected official in that sense.
So I received a letter in the mail from
Summit Carbon Solutions as well as Navigator Heartland Greenway, which was another CO2pipeline that was coming through South Dakota or wanted to come through.

(07:20):
And when I looked at that, uh it was about the time I had already decided to run.
And I looked at that paper and that letter and I said, uh this is the Green New Deal.
I recognized that literally I remembered the moment I was sitting at my desk reading thatletter.
I set it aside because I thought, well, I'm not interested in this because

(07:40):
I don't believe in the Green New Deal and I don't want to participate.
Not that I was against pipelines, not that I was against ethanol.
And that's the picture that was starting to be painted was if you're not for this project,then you're against pipelines, you're an environmentalist, which is absolutely not the
truth.
So um we started to embark on that.

(08:02):
I got elected into the legislature shortly after that.
and started my first term and that was so fast forward to 2023, January, that's when I wassworn in for the first time.
And I had a group of landowners at the time come to me and say, would you carry a bill?

(08:22):
We see that you also have been affected.
was gonna come, both pipelines were slated to come through our family's ground.
And so I was somewhat invested that way, but it was the bigger picture of
This is overreach and in our state of South Dakota, we were finding out that they coulduse eminent domain for these pipelines because they were here, what they were claiming

(08:43):
under our state law that they were a common carrier carrying a commodity.
Well, we started to make the argument that they were not a common carrier and they werenot carrying a commodity if you're going to bury it in the ground in North Dakota.
And so of course you have to remember this is both pipelines were gonna be five states.
Navigator was heading to Illinois to sequester and Summit was heading to North Dakota.

(09:07):
So I carried a bill my first year.
I was very nervous.
I thought so many people's futures and property are on the line and I'm going to do mybest.
Well, we did get that bill out of the House, which was basically saying no eminent domainfor CO2 pipelines that were going to receive a credit with a 45Q tax credit.

(09:29):
So it passed the House, it died in the Senate committee, and that was already, we knew theintent, the outcome of that committee before we got there.
um It was already pre-decided, and I know that for a fact.
And so fast forward to the next, well, then shortly after that, we had a man in our state,his name, a rancher up by Aberdeen, his name was Jared Bosley.

(09:53):
And after, in 2023, was about, I think in maybe April.
The surveyors came onto his ground from Summit Carbon Solutions.
They were armed and they, I mean, it was a complete overstep of what these things shouldlook like in our state.
And I was very alarmed.

(10:14):
I don't live in that part of the state.
I'm down in the Southeast corner.
And so I got a call from uh another farmer rancher up in that same area.
And he's like, Karla, you can't believe what's going on up here.
And so I was like,
I need to set eyes on this and why isn't anybody doing anything?
So we got a group of us, new legislators and some, some that had been there a while.

(10:38):
And I said, are you guys ready to do a road trip and see this for yourselves?
So we went up there and ended up turning into a little, um, property rights rally, if youwill, at the courthouse in little Leola, South Dakota, McPherson County.
And so we were able to go around and talk to some of the people that were being affectedby this.

(10:59):
So fast forward to 2024, Representative Speaker John Hanson, who is now running forgovernor in our state, uh he brought another bill similar to the one that I had brought.
Well, it didn't make it through.
so it's kind of this uh recurring theme that the big companies are coming in against us.

(11:23):
And literally, we're talking about BlackRock.
we're talking about continental resources.
These are the companies involved in these pipelines, multi-billion dollar companies umthat really have way more power and uh money than we do.
And so, but if we fast forward then to the year 2020, well, in 2024 then, after thatsession, we had our primary and we got to work.

(11:50):
And so this was a
host of people across the state working together.
I'm telling you, it was a nonpartisan issue.
We were able to network.
had captains and every, well, first of all, we got a lot of people elected, like you said,and so we were able to flip.
There were 14 incumbents that lost their seats.
Now 11 of those were voted on the wrong side of these issues.

(12:14):
Oh, and I have to add, it wasn't only John Hansen's bill that died, but there was apipeline bill that was brought.
called Senate Bill 201.
And they deemed that the landowner bill of rights.
Well, I will tell you, on the floor of the house, I called it the pipeline bill of rights.
So you know how they take something and they make it look so good, but when you startdigging down, it's actually the opposite of what they call it.

(12:41):
And so that bill had passed.
So we have something in South Dakota called a referred law, that if we, as the people ofSouth Dakota,
see that the legislature made a mistake, that they can come back.
And if you get so many signatures, we had to get over 17,000 signatures in 90 days acrossthe state.
Well, what happened was we got about 38,000 signatures and we put that back on theNovember ballot and we were able to defeat that bill.

(13:11):
so, and again, you know, some people say, you know, well, we have a representativeRepublic.
We do.
and that process worked.
But then the people were able to come back.
It wasn't like we just have a willy-nilly vote.
You had to get the signatures.
You had to get the people's support again to get something like that back on the ballot.
And so that happened in tandem with, well, the primary obviously was in June and we gotthose new legislators elected.

(13:39):
And then in November, we were able to defeat SB 201.
And then this year, 2025, I brought
House Bill 1052, which eliminated eminent domain for CO2 pipelines.
And because of the pressure that was brought by the people, even those legislators thatwere on the wrong side of this the first time around, basically were put on notice that

(14:03):
you better vote for this because the people are paying attention.
And so we got the bill through, the governor signed the bill.
Of course, we had a change in governor at the time.
Kristi Noem went on to be...
Homeland security secretary.
So Larry Rodin came into that spot as the lieutenant governor and took over.
So the bill was signed and what we've seen lately is Iowa now has followed in our steps.

(14:27):
It's not the exact same bill, but they've gotten a lot more protections, but now we'redealing with federal preemption and maybe you guys want to talk about that.
Yeah.
I do.
I do.
Because when we spoke earlier this week, you put me on notice that you're not just goingto be fighting this at your own doorstep, but there's a heck of a fight that should be

(14:47):
happening in Washington as well.
Would you talk a little bit about what you're seeing on that front?
Yes, so it's really happening in real time right now.
We are uh really watching what's happening actually on the on the call that I was onbefore with you guys.
We're trying to figure out exactly what happened because they just passed that bill in themiddle of the night in the house.

(15:09):
And that is that concurrent resolution that has the big beautiful bill, right?
So there were some provisions in there, though, to amend the Natural Gas Act.
We
We believe those those provisions were pulled out, but our concern was that they weregoing to be uh to be putting that back in.
Now, what we have heard early on, and I should know this within the next, probably beforewe're off the call, is if that really actually did remain out and that was out of the bill

(15:39):
when they when they passed it, we are hearing that it was and we're hoping that that isthe case.
But again, we have to continue to keep watching this.
because it will pass over to the Senate, they could try to put it back in.
You know how these things happen.
So, but that is really an overreach of the federal government.
So they were amending the Natural Gas Act to basically say that we are going to preemptany state or local law when it comes to the routing, the placement of pipelines for uh

(16:09):
carbon dioxide pipelines, for oil pipelines, and for hydrogen pipelines.
So they would put them in the same category as natural gas.
Plus they had a $10 million fast track permitting process included in there as well.
So again, you're gonna pit em the big, big companies against the people.
Yeah, and it is a textbook example, Karla, of federal overreach.

(16:33):
uh know, the Constitution reserves precisely this type of plenary authority to the states,ah particularly when carbon capture sequestration itself is becoming increasingly
questioned with regard to its scientific validity.
You know, we've consistently called it a scam.

(16:55):
It is not a public good.
ah And the position that we've had here in Louisiana, our group and many others, is thatyou just don't have the right to tell a private property owner what he must do with his or
her own property.
That is a direct assault on a core foundational principle of our constitution, a privateproperty.

(17:19):
And yet we have Republicans here in this state who have
howled before precisely the type of entities that you're talking about right now to defeatbill after bill after bill that would provide local authority and real protection for
private property owners here in the state of Louisiana.

(17:40):
yes, yeah, a number of them who are being enriched by this scam.
There's no question about it.
So South Dakota serves as a tremendous source of inspiration for us.
Because believe me, every voter and every constituent is going to know specifically howthese Republicans voted on these issues.

(18:02):
And so it's just wonderful to see.
Let me ask you this, Carl.
I'm assuming that the 11 of the 14 who were defeated in the elections, was that centeredon their position on carbon capture sequestration that I have a lot to do with it?
Absolutely.
Yes, they were targeted specifically for that issue because again, private propertyrights, you know, what George Washington said, and many of the people still in South

(18:32):
Dakota understand this, you cannot.
Freedom and property rights are inseparable.
You cannot have one without the other.
And so, you know, we have a lot of people, especially up in the northern part of thestate, that they came, their ancestors came here from companies, sorry, from countries
like Russia, the Ukraine, and they fled because their property was being confiscated bythe government.

(18:57):
So we still have roots that go back far enough that people see tyranny begin.
And they stand up against it here in South Dakota.
And so I believe that courage begets courage.
um We have got to stand up and recognize these things for what they are.
And like you said, this is a land grab.
This is all about getting our property.

(19:19):
And one thing that concerns me, we had a really good bill here in South Dakota that wepassed um and it was about foreign ownership of ag land.
And we passed that bill, which I was very happy to be a part of, but
That did not include easements.
And that is the way that they're getting around some of these things because they do notin law, it does not consider having an easement the ownership of that property.

(19:44):
So it's a right to the property, right?
So they are in these easements, they're able to, in the contract, it says they own it, orthey own the easement, but they can mortgage it, they can lease it, they can assign it to
someone else.
They also have the right to enter your property from any four corners to get to thateasement.

(20:05):
the ownership of, know, that's just one other aspect of this.
Obviously there's the safety aspect.
Obviously there's the, just the overreach of the eminent domain and everything.
But the foreign ownership in these things um is very alarming.
And uh we believe early on, I mean, you can Google this and see that even

(20:26):
Our governor early on was concerned with the foreign ownership in the summit pipeline andthat China was involved.
So we really have to, you know, they set these things up over many years and they get lawsthat are set up.
Now that we look back, we can see it.
Our survey law, all of those things had to be right in place for this to go through.

(20:50):
And it wasn't only here, it was in the other five or in the other four states as well.
Hmm.
so, you know, these plans and schemes have been going on for a long time.
And of course we know um the father of lies is very good at that.
And so we have to be diligent and be on guard all of the time with all of these laws thatare being passed.

(21:13):
But right now, I really believe this is one of the biggest issues that our country isfacing and that is this federal overreach.
And we have got to stand up for states' rights.
Yeah, we absolutely have to stand up for states rights.
I believe what General Flynn's battle cry has been for the last four or five years, localaction equals national impact.

(21:34):
ah And we can't just say, well, Trump's in power now, so we can all just sit down andrelax.
We have battles on every front.
you really take a step back and look around, there
War is waging all around us on every single issue imaginable.

(21:54):
I was wondering, Karla, since you have been so active and at the forefront of this, haveyou heard or have any indication from the Trump administration on when they may ah dry up
the federal funding for this?
Because I saw that they did something to cut off or suspend federal funding for ahwindmills not too long ago, a couple of weeks back.

(22:17):
So I'm hoping that we'll see.
similar action that will give us a little reprieve so we can do our fighting but not haveto feel so quite under the gun ah on this issue.
Well, this is what I'll say about that.
have been a supporter of President Trump, really appreciate so many of the things that hehas done.
I am quite alarmed by uh the recent trip to Saudi Arabia and the people that were on thattrip.

(22:45):
And we also see that, um you know, NextEra, some of the ownership that is involved withNextEra, which is wind, they were on that trip to Saudi Arabia.
m
There's a podcast that's out there.
can link it to you later.
But somebody just went through all of those people that traveled over there.

(23:09):
And um we're just seeing some things in real time that are concerning to us that arereally concerned about property rights.
And so we've had some mixed messages, if you will, from the administration on that.
so that is really where, and this 45Q tax credit
That is the thing that is driving all of this.

(23:31):
And so that really needs to be stripped out or this is not going to stop until that moneyis gone.
until that money is gone.
And we uh a call to action uh on our, we have a call to action about the 45Q tax credits.
uh You know, the big arguments that are made here in favor of the carbon capturesequestration call is that, hey, oil and gas is for it.

(23:57):
The big oil and gas companies are for it.
How could it be bad?
uh You know, number one, and number two, this is going to create a lot of jobs.
This is going to create a lot of jobs for Louisiana citizens.
How could you be opposed to this?
And the response to that, of course, is that I don't care if oil and gas is trying to grabas much of our tax dollars and tax credits as they can as well.

(24:20):
That doesn't mean we have to support something that's bad just because oil and gassupports it for the wrong reasons and is falsely trying to conflate carbon capture
sequestration, dumping this stuff in the ground with oil and gas development.
That's just a lie.
Talk about the father.
of lies.
And secondly, yet creates jobs, but it creates jobs that are being propped up and fundedwith our money and our tax credits.

(24:47):
This is not an enterprise that would be profitable in the private enterprise if it had tostand on its own two feet.
It wouldn't be.
it stand on its own two feet, please.
it stand on its own two feet.
So, yeah.
that's what we as conservative Republicans believe, right?
In the free market.
And this is a federal subsidy that you're exactly right is just propping this whole thingup.

(25:11):
And if you pull that away, it will not stand.
uh you know, those of us, again, we can have the best and the most shiny object in theroom that's going to help us all out, right?
But if we have to strip constitutional rights away,
to do something like that, uh then it's not worth it.

(25:31):
Because that's exactly what we're all fighting for, right?
Is our right to freedom.
And we have a constitution that we always have to go back to and we always have to lookthrough that lens first.
Is this good?
Is it constitutional?
And then let's move forward from there.
But if it doesn't check that box, then we'd better stop.

(25:52):
Yep, don't pass go, don't collect $200.
Yeah, and you know, that's a great point.
you know, there are legitimate uses, as you know, Karla, for eminent domain.
You know, it's in, uh I believe, the Fifth Amendment of the U.S.
Constitution, but it has been so contorted and so abused that people are, it's just beencompletely uh immolated, really, as far as its original purpose.

(26:22):
You know, and it's not even though they're expropriating private property for a goodpurpose.
You can't even say that about this.
They're expropriating private property at the altar of a scam.
And even the people who support this at this point, Karla, they no longer talk about thefact that it protects the environment or that we need it for the environment, which was

(26:45):
the original justification for allowing eminent domain in our state for carbon capturesequestration.
And at this point, they don't even talk about it anymore.
Even they know it's a scam.
Yes, I was in a stockholders meeting actually with one of the ethanol companies and thatquestion was asked by one of the farmers, how much is this going to reduce CO2 in the

(27:07):
atmosphere?
And they said, well really very little.
But this is exactly what they said.
This is a business opportunity.
built on nothing, literally built on thin air.
You know, this really goes back to, I think, the Kelo decision, which was in the SupremeCourt, I believe it was 2005.

(27:28):
And um where they overrode, um they used eminent domain against a private property ownerfor business purposes.
And it was Pfizer, I believe, at the time.
But I talked to somebody that was in Congress back then, and he said he had a privateconversation with Justice Scalia.

(27:50):
And Scalia said this was a bad decision and it will be overturned someday.
And I think that this is something that we need to go back, we need to look at, and um weneed to get this right for the people of this country, because if we do not, our freedoms
are at risk.

(28:10):
Amen.
And Chris, maybe that's something we can get the Pelican Institute to look at because Ismell a challenge coming somewhere.
I think so too.
And you're so right, Karla.
And what a lot of people don't understand, and this is, this is, you know, really thispoint goes beyond simple private property.

(28:32):
Any government deprivation of our freedom and liberty in any facet of life, it never comesabout suddenly.
It never comes about uh in a way that alarms people initially.
It's always, as Madison said, sort of a death by a thousand cuts.

(28:53):
And unless the water is pouring directly into someone's own front door, they don't thinkthat there's any issue.
And that really goes to the issue of apathy.
And what we have to continue to try to inform people and educate people about is that themoment you allow even the slightest deprivation of a core constitutional freedom in the

(29:17):
slightest degree,
the precedent has set and from there it simply expands.
From there it's simply a matter of degree.
So I have a deep appreciation for your point ah that we have to confront these things asthey occur.
Yeah.
And I might also add to that, Karla, you are so right about the enemy planning thesethings years and years in advance and having step by step plotted out how they're going to

(29:45):
approach the whole entire, uh basically the supply chain of the issue.
And I think as conservatives, as constitutionalists, we need to be in the same position.
We need to finally get a place.
At some point we will have
hopefully no longer be on the defensive and we can start making offensive wins.

(30:07):
And I think you serve as a great reminder that we're behind the eight ball and ouradversary is already far down the road from us.
Yeah.
And you know, another thing that Karla is a great example of, Danielle, is the fact thatit's possible to suffer some defeats in in some battles and still win the war.

(30:28):
And that is a great, great lesson and a great testament to perseverance and tenacitybecause that's exactly what happened in South Dakota.
But, but Karla, uh, one more question here that I wanted to ask you, you mentioned someother states.
that are following South Dakota's example.
Could you talk a little bit more about what some other states are doing consistent withwhat South Dakota has done?

(30:51):
Sure.
Well, of course, our friends in Iowa, they have been fighting this as well.
And so we have something called the Free Soil Foundation that we've kind of startedjoining together with some other states that's based out of Iowa.
But um I have been a part of that as well.
And we know that we cannot always defeat these things, especially if we're going to startlooking at some things coming down from the federal government.

(31:18):
We need to be joining together in things like these and podcasts and efforts that we canjoin together with others to bring our ideas, tell what's happening oh in real time on the
ground, even comparing legislation of what's worked, what doesn't work.
uh so anyway, so Iowa just recently passed a very similar law to ours, probably not quiteas strong, but bringing some real protections for Iowans.

(31:45):
in that state and I believe it's still awaiting the governor's signature, uh GovernorReynolds down there, but hopefully she will be signing that.
And uh also, you know, we've worked with people down in Nebraska.
I've been down to speak in Nebraska before.
Nebraska has obviously each of these states has their own laws and the ways that they dothese things.

(32:06):
And I will just mention too in South Dakota, you know, these things have to go through ourPublic Utilities Commission.
Our Public Utilities Commission
has voted no three different times for permit, first of all for Navigator and then twotimes for Summit.
And so they are elected in our state.
That's another important point to make.
So they are accountable to the people, whereas in Iowa, there's our appointed.

(32:32):
And I will say that their IUC has caved on this.
And again, but they're appointed by the governor.
And so you have all of those ties.
I just...
The more that we look at these things, the more I see how important it is to those, tomany of these officials that they be responsible to the people directly.

(32:53):
And it makes a difference.
And also, um you know, in Minnesota, we have some movement there.
Obviously they're a blue state.
And, um but they have been working on these things as well.
Again, have they have some different laws.
North Dakota as well.
North Dakota is a really tough fight up there because oil and gas is so big.

(33:14):
um they've they've just a lot of people have just sold out to that and just you know, butthere are still some people they did get them to move the CO2 pipeline, the line.
um Senator Magrim up there is a great uh fighter for on behalf of property rights.
And so he's been doing a great job.

(33:35):
uh
Illinois, we know had a moratorium on CO2 pipelines, but this federal overreach would evenoverride that if it was in there.
Yeah, so anything like that would just be overwritten.
But we've heard from many states that are concerned about these, about not just the CO2pipelines, but just the overreach with wind and solar and all of that.

(33:57):
Oklahoma has reached out to us.
And so there's movement in all of these states, but it takes time getting up to speed.
What is our state law?
What's allowed?
What's not?
What needs to be changed?
And, you know, we can try to help with those efforts and just to know what we did here,but just what exactly we did may not work in your state, but we can certainly try to help

(34:21):
navigate that for you.
So.
And who knows, you may end up being down here in Louisiana testifying before committee atsome point.
We'd sure love to meet you.
We'd sure love to have you down here.
We'll treat you right.
ah Danielle, we have time for me to ask Karla one more question, specific question here?

(34:42):
Do you have, Karla, because I'm very intrigued by what you said about the common carrierissue ah with regard to carbon capture sequestration in South Dakota.
Could you explain a little bit more about um that issue as it relates to the legislationuh being successful in South Dakota, the common carrier issue?

(35:05):
Well, and so one thing that I kind of that I failed to tell you is this also made its waythrough the courts.
And so this went all the way to our South Dakota Supreme Court because Summit was sayingthey were a common carrier carrying a commodity, which is how our law reads.
If you're a common carrier carrying a commodity for hire, then you have the right ofeminent domain in our state law.

(35:30):
And so we all know that common carriers are things, you know, that are
carrying something um that's going to be like a railroad or a natural gas pipeline orthings like that.
um And something that serves, yes, and that is a public use, right.
And we kept making the point that this was not a public use.

(35:53):
It was not a commodity.
um This wasn't something that I was gonna use or that you were gonna use or your brotherwas gonna use or the town next door was gonna use.
ah So it wasn't a public use.
It wasn't a commodity because it was going to be sequestered in the ground in NorthDakota, buried in a rock formation.
ah And so we made that case and it went up to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Courtruled on our side, on the people's side, that this was, this is how they said it, they

(36:23):
have not proved that they are a common carrier carrying a commodity.
So we were able to capitalize on that ruling.
Then we had the
referred law after that that we defeated at the ballot box.
And then we then we carried that forward into the legislation with House Bill 1052, whichsaid you cannot use eminent domain.

(36:45):
And so we were able to say not because they were a common carrier, that didn't haveanything to do this time with my bill.
But we as a legislature have the right to say who can use eminent domain in our state ornot.
So that argument was gone that they were a common carrier.
But beyond that, we just said, if you're a CO2 pipeline, you can't use eminent domain inthe state of South Dakota.

(37:10):
And so, you know, of course they were threatening to sue us and all of this.
Well, that didn't happen.
And so did I answer your question?
I'm sorry.
Okay.
So ultimately, the ultimate passage of your bill prohibiting eminent domain for carboncapture pipelines, that was not based on the common carrier argument?

(37:32):
Okay.
So because we already felt like that, that had been determined with the Supreme Courtruling.
um But we were just saying, we're just going to say, you absolutely can't use eminentdomain if you're a CO2 pipeline.
There's too many other things that go on with it.
There's safety issues.
There's this or that.
Now, that does not mean that we prohibited CO2 pipelines in our state.

(37:56):
We just said, you can't use eminent domain.
So if you're a private person,
and you want to sign up, we always said from the very beginning, you should be able to sayyes or no, thank you to a project.
And that is what our, you know, that's what the free market is about.
And so, but if you're going to try to come into our state and to shove something down ourthroats that we do not want and force us to do it, because you're saying you're a common

(38:21):
carrier or you're saying you're carrying a commodity, it doesn't matter in this case, whatyou say you are, if you're a CO2 pipeline.
You cannot use eminent domain here.
And I will just say that specifically, um, one of the pipeline companies came in and theywere a bully and they, went around, they, they tried to get a favor in all of these

(38:43):
different counties.
And I will say our, our previous GOP chairman was involved in it.
these tentacles go deep into, not into the Republican it's both it's the Republican partyand it's the Democrat party.
And we always.
We kind of deemed them two different things.
We called Navigator the Democrat pipeline because it had ties more to the Democrats.

(39:08):
And we had Summit Carbon Solutions that had a lot of ties to a lot of Republicans.
um But at the end of the day, they were corporatists.
They were out for the money.
They were out for the land.
yes, there's the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow is the 45Q tax credit.

(39:28):
But I think there's even other things that maybe even to this day we don't all know what'sinvolved in that.
Yeah.
What would you suggest, Karla, to our listeners down here in Louisiana, they should dowith respect to the federal action that's going on?
And what specifically should they be, should they be, we should be telling our reps inD.C.?

(39:49):
Yeah, so we have to really dig down and see what's still in this bill.
But even regardless, if these pipeline uh preemptions have been stripped out, we stillhave to go over after that 45Q tax provision.
And as it passes over to the Senate, they still have the opportunity to strip that out.
We need to get rid of that.

(40:10):
And so I think that, especially when it's in regard to CO2 pipelines.
And so I think that we still need to be engaged on this issue.
You need to be contacting your senators.
And I think that they are starting to get the message that the people are involved.
They are watching these things.
And so they had better be on notice that we are not going to just sit idly by anymore andlet these constitutional rights really be stripped away from us.

(40:39):
Because if this domino falls,
then you will continue to see more and more abuse of the United States citizen as timegoes on.
And like I said before, property is tied to freedom.
And yes.
great way to say that Karla.
And it's, I think that uh you're worth quoting here because I think every one of our, if Icould stamp this on the forehead without being accused of battery to every rhino

(41:09):
Republican in the legislature in Louisiana, I would, but this is a quote from you.
This is a power that can be lorded over landowners to threaten or coerce them intosomething that they would not normally do if they had the freedom to say, no, thank you.
Well, in South Dakota, guess what?
Because of you and efforts of many like you, they have the freedom to say, no, thank you.

(41:33):
And we're going to put Louisiana in that position at some point because of yourinspiration and efforts.
So God bless you and thank you for all your good work.
Well, thank you both so much.
appreciate both of you and all the work that you are doing as well.
Thank you Karla, good luck with your race.

(41:55):
Nope, I couldn't hear her.
Alright, looks like she's signing off.
Let me, I can help her.
One second.
Okay, Chris.
Well, it was great to talk to Karla.

(42:19):
She put a lot into this.
first of all, when I talked to her earlier this week, she told me uh that they were tryingto go across her property with this.
talk about have some skin in the game whenever it comes to...
believe it.
And that was occurring.
So she really had a vested interest in it even before she ran for state rep.

(42:40):
Right.
And she was very alarmed by it.
And I just think that's such a powerful example about what can happen when people gettogether and work hard.
And so much of it has to do, as she said, with exposing and removing the dead fish uh inthe legislature and getting new people in there and making sure that they do the right
thing.

(43:01):
And we can certainly accomplish that.
Speaking, Daniella, doing the right thing or the wrong thing, boy, did some things happenthis week.
Yeah, well, you had your work cut out for you.
I know you tried once again to clone yourself, but were probably unsuccessful in thatendeavor.
So my notes are all over the place.

(43:21):
I've got all kinds of numbers running through my head here, but we'll sled on here.
All right.
Well, if you would, maybe I can just run us through and ask you for some updates, Chris.
I know on Tuesday there was a lot going there was a fair bit going on.
I think more happened again on Wednesday, but Tuesday in House Natural Resources andEnvironment, Senator Facy's bill um to to put an end to the geoengineering, to put an end

(43:50):
to weather modification unanimously passed uh the committee.
and we believe it should be headed to the House floor next week.
I don't know if you were able to um hear any of the debate around that.
I'm happy to hear that it was unanimous.
it was unanimous.
was rushing to get down there after our podcast.
Obviously we have a call to action up on this and the committee got hundreds of emailsfrom, our group, supporting the legislation.

(44:16):
Uh, I was not there in time to testify on it, but I did do a green card.
know that that the LA CAG supports the legislation and I don't think it got anyopposition, uh, in the, uh, in the committee and fortunately it got out of there.
So now it goes on to the house.
floor.
And we are very optimistic about this getting these pollutants out of the air.

(44:43):
I mean, what an incredible you know, the thing Danielle that Katie's like, look, I'm very,happy that this bill is moving forward.
It's very important.
There shouldn't be any opposition, but Katie's still upset that there's not criminalpenalties attached to this.
She said this is a crime.
This is a fundamental violation of human autonomy.
It's true.
Absolutely.

(45:03):
criminal penalties associated with this?
Absolutely.
And I think, Chris, ah that's part of the reason there was no industry there, remarkably,to oppose the legislation, because they would be telling us who they are, which they have
not yet done.
Yeah.
You know, it's interesting, Danielle, there was a guy there testifying who was there from,I think, out of state from California testifying against the legislation.

(45:29):
Yes.
Yeah.
And so the fact that he came in from California to testify against this legislation sortof puts the lie to the notion that what's coming out of the back of these planes is simply
contrails, just plain exhaust.
Right?
someone had the gall to show up, but I guess nobody from inside the state did.

(45:52):
They had to rely on somebody from outside the state.
No, he knew that he could seek egress quickly after the hearing back to California.
But fortunately, people treated him well because we're in Louisiana and we're going totreat people graciously.
But yeah, I just thought it was very telling that we had an out-of-state partisan heretestifying against this bill.
Yeah, well, I bet his playing back did have chemtrails, so.

(46:15):
You think he might have dumped some out on his way out of the state.
did.
All right.
Let's move over, Chris, to what happened in housing governmental affairs on Tuesday.
We had um Senator Sebaugh's constitutional amendment that would prohibit foreign donationsand elections.

(46:36):
We expected it to be heard on Tuesday.
It wasn't heard.
I guess they didn't have time for it, so they bumped it to probably next week.
Yeah, it should go next week, uh Senate Governmental Affairs, right, Danielle?
Next week.
And, you know, as we've talked about before, the bill really does clean up uhRepresentative McGhast's former legislation.

(46:57):
And this bill just categorically prohibits foreign money in our elections on the statelevel, including ballot propositions or constitutional amendments.
The only thing that it doesn't do
If you have a bill that is whose purpose is to protect your elections from foreigninterference and foreign corruption, why would you not have a provision in there ah to

(47:20):
prohibit the purchase of computer voting systems until at least President Trump'sexecutive order ah is uh fully, fully consummated, you know, where the report's done about
how vulnerable these computers are.
But that's not in there.
And I will have an opportunity, hopefully, when I testify in favor of this legislation.

(47:41):
I don't know whether to do a green card or a white card, but the bottom line is we dosupport the legislation, this constitutional amendment, but we're going to strongly
encourage that a provision be added to it to prohibit the acquisition of these computervoting machines.
Yeah, yeah.
And Chris, you know, one thing that we see a lot of around uh issues like this is we seelike a busload of Chinese people getting dropped off at the Capitol to come and testify in

(48:09):
opposition to it, or at least show up in the room and show, you know, and put in red cardsor something.
Is there any reason that we would want somebody to bring legislation that some way limits
foreign testimony in our Capitol, or at least like a resolution that says, yeah, you cancome and testify.

(48:33):
We want to hear all sides.
But um the preference and the deference goes to the citizens of the state.
The deference will not go to foreign entities or foreign people.
that that is fair.
I don't think that's going to happen.
ah Maybe not in this environment, but to the extent that people are there to testify foror against a bill, I think at least facially, they feel like they have an obligation to

(49:00):
allow everyone to speak while they're there.
ah But yeah.
You know, facially it seems that way, but we got on our State of Freedom Facebook pagethis week a note from a woman who said that there were three female firefighters from
Vernon Parish who showed up to House Municipal Affairs this week to testify and they werenot allowed to testify.

(49:25):
I just, you know how I feel about House Municipal Affairs Committee.
is a bunion.
It is, you know.
I can't, it's a blight on our state governance that that even exists.
is, Danielle, because this is a committee whose primary purpose is to tell localgovernments and local jurisdictions what they can and cannot do.

(49:52):
I mean, I don't quite understand that.
If you're a legislative body, what you do, if you have the constitutional authority to doit, should apply statewide, or you don't have the constitutional authority to do it.
But for you,
teacher of local governance.
exactly.
So I agree with you 100 percent.

(50:12):
And I know that you want to abolish entirely uh the House Committee on Local and MunicipalAffairs.
And I think I'm on board with you there because they're always dictating to these localjurisdictions what they can and can't do and having the local jurisdictions beg Baton
Rouge for money.
Yeah.
And you know, when we had representative Guymon um on, he chairs the House NaturalResources and he committed that they would go through the night if they needed to.

(50:41):
So every single person that had, that came from somewhere across the state to testify onthe bill, whether for, you know, on the bills, whether for or against would have the
opportunity to be heard.
So I find it very, very disgusting and alarming that the same would not be happening inHouse.
municipal affairs of all places when the people from the localities want to be heard onthe topics.

(51:06):
Yeah.
And I think it's, it's, it's despicable.
That is really a, that committee has, you know, on a number of bills that come to mindthat we won't talk about now, that that committee has just done some things, you know,
that are just inefficient, uh, reflective of a, lack of understanding of procedure.
And really it's just a circus in there, you know, and, but, but as a matter of principle,Danielle, we don't need that committee in this state.

(51:35):
Period, period.
Send the money and send the issues back to where they came from.
And the people can, that would involve, yeah, devolution of power.
That's right.
All right.
Speaking of power, House administration of criminal justice also met on Tuesday and umrepresentative Denise Marcel's House Bill 457, her solitary confinement bill was ah heard

(52:04):
and it looked
Chris, like she got our amendment in there, which is exciting.
You can talk a little bit more about that.
I believe, ah how did that bill do?
I didn't put it in my notes.
It did well, Pat, passed out of uh committee and it is, and with the amendment that we hadsuggested on allowing religious materials to an inmate who was in solitary confinement.

(52:28):
It originally included only educational materials, but now specifically because of ourrequest, it will include religious materials for someone who's in solitary confinement.
you know, we believe in accountability.
We believe in the rule of law.
We also believe in being humane, and that's important.
yeah, absolutely.
And I just looked it up and it passed eight to nothing.
So, and that amendment made it in there.

(52:50):
So awesome news on that one.
Happy to pass some good news along.
so that now goes to the house floor.
Yeah.
And there were a couple things that were scheduled for House final passage this pastTuesday, Chris.
One of them was House Bill 75 by Representative Danny McCormick.
And you can talk a little bit about what that bill would have done.

(53:13):
Yeah, this bill, Danielle, would have simply ensured that property owners who do notvoluntarily surrender their property for carbon capture sequestration pipelines.
In other words, they hold out ah and ultimately they're forced into the unit of affectedproperty owners that their compensation for having to surrender their property will not

(53:38):
only not be penalized, they will not be penalized for that, but they will get
at least the average compensation that every other property owner will get for having tosurrender use of their property.
It was a very, very fair bill.
It would have protected to the degree they're willing to do it now, private propertyrights.

(53:59):
And yet that bill failed on the House floor.
And you know what's disgusting, Chris, this is a punishment of people who are standing fortheir constitutional rights.
So, so what they're saying is unless you go along, unless you go along with the scam,unless you let us shove this down your throat, you're not going to get anything.

(54:22):
Don't expect to get anything from us.
We'll just take your property and you get what you get.
And I think Chris, the people who voted against this need to be called out.
I don't know if you want to call him out or if you want me to call him out.
Why don't you go for it?
the final vote on this was this 54 to 46.

(54:43):
Can you see what the...
account says 37 is 61, which is even more atrocious.
37 to 61.
And here are the Republicans who voted against a bill that simply would have made surethat a private property owner who's forced into an expropriation situation gets at least

(55:04):
the same average compensation for certain numerous property that anybody else would getsimply for asserting his private property rights.
DeVille, Bockela, Bamberg, Bayham.
Bouye, Buralt Davis Domingue, familiar name, Echols, Fontenot, Freiburg, Gadbury, Lacombe,McFarland, McMahon, McMaken, Reiser, Schlegel, Spell, Saint Blanc, Thomas, Turner, Villio,

(55:40):
Wiley, Weibel, and Zirang.
Those were the Republicans who opposed this legislation.
And I was very inspired.
by Representative Chuck Owens' remarks on this bill on the House floor.
He really spoke exactly what the way citizens across Louisiana feel about this issue.
uh And it's just becoming increasingly important that we let voters know exactly how theseRepublicans have voted on these issues.

(56:09):
Yeah.
I'm just stunned, Chris.
I'm stunned because it just shows this.
To me, this is a lot like the way we've seen the gold and silver bill operate, where itdoesn't even matter how reasonable of an argument you make.
It doesn't even matter how much concessions you give, right?
Because the concession here is, let's say that eminent domain continues and someone takesyour property and you don't want them to.

(56:36):
What is your legal recourse in a state that loves lawsuits?
You would think in a state that, uh, you know, says that we're doing this for the publicinterest or we're doing this to create jobs.
Well, who cares if you create jobs?
Why can't you at least at a bare minimum give the people whose property was stolen fromthem an equitable value?

(56:59):
It's unbelievable.
It's absolutely unbelievable.
And I hope that none of these people get reelected.
Yeah.
um
I just want to point out one more time, the speaker did not have to vote on this.
The speaker does not have to lodge a vote, but he has consistently voted against propertyrights this session, and I think that bears mention.

(57:21):
And his vote wouldn't have made a difference.
No, that's exactly right.
It's not like it was the tiebreaker.
Unbelievable.
Absolutely unbelievable.
All right.
Well, uh next up is a pretty interesting one, Chris, that I think you'll probably enjoytalking about.
House Bill 160, Representative Kelly Dickerson's ethics complaints bill where basicallyit's a due process bill, you said, and it's also got some whistleblower protection in

(57:46):
there.
It passed the House floor, 88 to seven, with the only
Republican voting against it being Jessica Domingue.
22 Democrats joined in support.
So 22 Democrats crossed over and supported a transparency bill, but my representative,Jessica Domingue, voted against it.
So every Republican who voted on HB 160 on the House floor voted in favor of it.

(58:10):
A bill that simply says that at some point during an ethics investigation with the StateEthics Board, the accused has a right to know the identity of the person who is accusing
him.
Seems like a fundamental due process issue and an issue of basic fairness.
So the bill would have provided that and it also provides uh

(58:33):
because of some conversations that we had with the author, Representative Dickerson, andother people talked to her about this, some very strong anti-retaliation language in the
bill, which prevents someone who's accused from taking any retaliatory action against acomplainant.
And that's very, very important because sometimes very powerful people have meritoriouscomplaints filed against them, and we don't want to chill or discourage people filing

(58:58):
meritorious complaints.
And so the bill would have done both of those two things.
It's a well-written bill.
It's a good bill.
as reflected by the vote, Danielle, and yet your representative, Jessica Domaine, theRepublican, stood out and thought it was appropriate to vote against that legislation.
Yeah.
And if I recall correctly, Chris, and we may have mentioned this on the last show, but ahwhen I believe it was maybe Chuck Owen who brought this legislation last year, or I think

(59:26):
it was Chuck Owen, ah she voted against it and it was killed in committee.
Yeah.
Hysterical.
so she voted against it last year.
So, fortunately, so now it will go on to the Senate committee and hopefully on to finalpassage.
Yeah, all right, but no thanks to Jessica Dome.

(59:48):
All right, well, next up House Bill 405, a great bill being brought by DemocratRepresentative Matthew Willard, and it requires the Secretary of State to prepare and
publish information, changes in the election law and how that's gonna be rolled out by heroffice.
It passed 96 to nothing.

(01:00:08):
which is pretty stunning.
to me, there must not be enough in there that's objectionable to Secretary Landry.
I think that's how, that's my read on it.
I think you're right.
The bill at this point requires her to post and provide public updates with aboutlegislative changes, changes in law regarding elections or election procedures.

(01:00:32):
And that is important.
And it is important and it shouldn't be controversial.
One thing that you and I have discussed when this goes before Senator Kleinpeter's SenateGovernmental Affairs Committee is advocating
before that committee that there be a specific provision in the bill, the bill be amendedto require the Secretary of State to be, to provide specific updates uh and all

(01:00:57):
appropriate notices with regard to the procurement process uh in getting our new votingsystem.
Because that is a big concern to people in Louisiana.
Many people have felt left out of the process.
She wants to buy a hundred million dollars worth of computer voting systems.
And people don't really know where she is in the procurement process.
People don't know how to provide public input and that sort of thing.

(01:01:20):
so hopefully we get the bill amended that will require her to be fully transparent in theprocurement process for this new voting system that she wants.
Yeah.
Chris, as a matter of where we are in the process, is that, do you think that's alreadylaw and it's just not being followed?

(01:01:40):
To be honest with you, I don't know.
It could be, but I certainly don't think it could hurt uh to codify uh it within theparameters of this bill.
Because, you know, I testified on another bill yesterday that will talk about Danielle,and I said, look, a lot of people feel very left out of this process.
ah You know, well, I appreciate you saying that.

(01:02:02):
So we're going to reach out to Senator McGeas and Senator Kleinpeter and see about gettingan amendment on that bill specifically relating to
transparency in the procurement process.
Beautiful.
uh don't forget about fair notice for hearings.
fair notice, fair notice and hearing and transparency.
Yeah.
Okay.
Next up, uh these were a couple of bills that should have gone to the Senate for finalpassage this week.

(01:02:30):
Some of them did, some of them didn't.
SB 80, Senator Greg Miller's uh exit poll censorship bill.
As of 2-
has been still pending for a final vote on the House floor, right?
On the House floor.

(01:02:50):
Yeah.
And this is the bill that would unconstitutionally restrict uh law abiding citizens fromconducting lawful exit polls.
And we're the only state in the country, if this passes, that would distinguish betweenbona fide journalists and law abiding citizens.
when it comes to who has the right to conduct exit polls.

(01:03:11):
I don't know why they keep delaying the vote in the House on this bill, Danielle, becauseit's been scheduled.
But I know we have a call to action out on it.
And, you know, I spoke with Beryl Amedee about it yesterday very briefly, and she believesthat this bill should be killed.
I know she certainly opposes it.
And I sent a lot of communiques to different...

(01:03:34):
when I thought it was going to be voted on yesterday.
I sent some communications to a number of reps uh urging them to vote against this bill,uh SB 80.
It's a horrendous piece of legislation that's being uh pushed once again by our Secretaryof State, Nancy Landry.
And this is in basically the 11th hour posture, right?

(01:03:56):
But there's nothing to say that it can't be defeated here.
If you recall, I know you do, um Mike Bayam's gallant speech against the cockroach bill,the bill that would have infringed on our right to talk on a handheld cell phone device in
our car.
um His speech killed that so decisively, so powerfully last year that I'm hoping Chris...

(01:04:19):
Maybe we should be figuring out who would be the appropriate person to stand up and agreat speech on why censorship is not welcome in the state of Louisiana.
Absolutely.
And believing we're going to be working on it.

(01:04:41):
And, you know, because it really is a it really is a bill that it's not about what peopleare doing.
It's not about the nature of the activity that the secretary of state's against Danielle.
It's about the nature of the information that they're going to be deriving when they dothese exit polls.
ah And she doesn't want that.

(01:05:03):
She doesn't want any opportunity to question the validity of
a computer or machine based voting system.
And that's what this ultimately comes down to.
And I don't think there's any reason the Democrats can't come over on this one.
I don't either.
that's something that we can talk to the Democrats about.
ah know, speaking, Danielle, uh of Mike Baham and the cell phone bill, you know, that HB,I think it's 19, 519 by Representative Glorioso is still, you know, it passed the House,

(01:05:36):
but it's still pending before the Senate Transportation Committee.
ah So it hasn't, yeah.
chair for that?
I don't know who the chairman is for the Senate Trans...
Yeah, but...
But it's interesting that this.

(01:05:58):
I hope it pins until it can pins no longer.
Let's see.
You know what?
It's Patrick Connick.
Yeah.
Well, Patrick Connick, that's not necessarily a good sign because Patrick Connick is theone who brought the cockroach bill, the cell phone bill last year.

(01:06:19):
Yeah.
Or maybe two years ago.
Yeah.
But he, but he brought.
was McMath.
Oh, no, I'm sorry.
was confused.
Connick and McMath, no.
So it was McMath.
So Connick, no, he's not involved.
So look, Connick may, uh he may look at this and say, you know what, this is overreach.

(01:06:40):
So the point is, and I can reach out to Senator Connick on this, but this, you know, thisbill, Danielle, it passed in the House, sorry for this.
71 to 28 in the House, the cell phone bill on May 6th.
May 6th.
And it's still apparently not been scheduled for hearing in the Senate TransportationCommittee.

(01:07:04):
So maybe that's a good sign.
Look, there's a lot more important things that Senate transportation needs to be doing,namely getting these contracts, uh let the contract legislation worked out and the total
revamp of DOTD.
Those are far more important for Senate transport to be listening to than this garbage.
than this garbage where you're going to criminalize someone from talking on a handheldcell phone.

(01:07:26):
So anyway, yeah, I think it's a good sign.
I thought it was worth noting when you mentioned Mike Bayen.
Yeah.
Thanks.
All right.
Next up Senate bill 117 that's represent, sorry, Senator Blake Miguez's uh ultra processedfood ban.
Getting it out of the schools.
uh It hasn't been voted on yet.

(01:07:46):
So I.
It hasn't been voted yet on the House.
Yeah, so it passed the Senate, hasn't been voted yet on the House floor.
ah Do you anticipate any problem with this, getting this garbage and this dye out of ourstudents' diets?
No, there's probably there's just two or three Democrats and Barbara Freiburg that don'twant it.

(01:08:09):
Yeah.
Two or three Democrats in Freiburg.
Yeah, that's going to be a good quote one day.
But yeah, I think it's a very good bill and it's really a complimentary bill to McMath'sSB 14, uh that his nutrition bill and it's very important.

(01:08:29):
Yeah, and Chris, I was even wondering if they were holding this back because um McMathseems to be a bit more robust and it's making its way through without too much headwind.
So I'm wondering if they'll just let that one scoot ahead of this one.
They may well be doing that because the bills are very similar.
Yeah.
All right, Chris, Senate Bill 39 by Senator Jay Morris.

(01:08:52):
This is his false imprisonment bill to say that the state won't be liable if they continueto hold prisoners past their out date.
And you said that it passed.
It passed on a party line vote with Jimmy Harris and Jay Luna joining the Republicans invoting the wrong way for it, by the way.
A yes is a wrong vote on this one and it will be sent over to the House to go to committeenext week.

(01:09:17):
Yeah, SB 39, you're to be going over to either House Judiciary, maybe House GovernmentalAffairs, but the bill, Danielle, is not nearly as ominous as it was at the beginning in
its original form.
It's just not needed anymore.
It's a terrible bill.

(01:09:38):
you know, it does have to do with liability by the state for overdetaining inmates.
whose time has been served, they should be getting out.
Look, just get your systems in order.
As I said before, the Department of Corrections in Louisiana has a $1.2 billion budget.
Calculate the out dates properly and you won't get sued for it.

(01:09:59):
that's right.
Chris, when these bills get sent over to the Senate, um and we know they're Senate Jude,we call it, but Senate Judiciary A, B, and C, do you know, is there any reason other than
scheduling that one committee would get a bill like this versus another?

(01:10:19):
they topical or A, B, and C assigned topically or is it just?
um the pleasure of the chair and the pleasure of the Senate president.
I think it's the pleasure of the chair, the pleasure of the Senate president, and probablyalso the author of the bill may have some influence over which Judiciary Committee it goes
before.

(01:10:39):
uh But in the case of uh SB 39, Senate Bill 39, Jay Morris, that now is going over to theHouse side.
And they only have one House Governmental Affairs Committee.
And so that's probably where it's going to go unless it goes
to the judiciary, which it might go on the House side.

(01:11:00):
But the point is, this bill is terrible.
Still terrible, not as terrible.
the point after all our rambling is the bill is terrible, they should vote no.
They should vote no because it's not needed.
But thank God it's not as bad as it was.
Yeah, and we were supposed to have um someone, Caroline, oh darn, can't recall her lastname, Gabriel, from William Most's law firm speak on this with us on Tuesday.

(01:11:30):
Due to uh an administrative error on my part, she wasn't able to join, um but we may getsomeone from their firm to come and talk to us next week if this looks like it's still in
play.
Yeah, and get their thoughts on the new iteration of the bill.
I don't think they're as alarmed as they were at the beginning.
By the way, Danielle, I testified against this legislation before Senate Jude A.

(01:11:54):
That's right.
That's right.
um Okay, Chris, Senate Bill 214.
This one stinks to high heaven by Senator Royce DuPlessis.
And this one would make the commissioner of insurance appointed by the governor.
Yeah.
Senator Royce DuPlessis, leftist among the left ah in the state Senate uh would, as yousaid, would make the commissioner of insurance in Louisiana appointed by the governor uh

(01:12:26):
and chosen from a list of nominees submitted to him by various heads of legislative headsand agency heads.
uh so Thomas Pressley uh stood strong against this on the Senate floor.
as well as Senator Adam Bass and Senator Kirk Talbot.
But Senator Presley was particularly impressive because he just asked a very simplequestion on the floor to Du Plessis.

(01:12:50):
He said, who gets more power from this bill?
Who gets more power?
And obviously, Du Plessis tried to weave around it and avoid answering it straightforward,but it's obvious that the governor gets more power from this bill.
And we live in an elected democracy.
And there's no reason why the commissioner of insurance should be an appointed position inour state.

(01:13:16):
He should be elected and accounted to people just like everybody else.
So the bottom line is SB 214.
Du Plessis was so badgered on it by those two or three senators that it was returned tothe calendar and not voted on because I'm sure Du Plessis realized that he didn't have the
votes for it.
So I don't know what's going to happen with 214 if it's going to come back up or whetherit is as good as dead at this point.

(01:13:37):
It should be.
It should be dead.
you know, when Karla was talking with us earlier about their public service commission,their equivalent of the public service commission being elected instead of appointed and
the power that held, I know I started smiling.
I saw you were grinning as well because that's the exact point.
These people need to be accountable to us, not to the governor, because it has been proventhat the governor does not believe he is accountable to us.

(01:14:05):
Exactly.
And we don't have any reason really to believe, unfortunately, that any future governorwill be.
Hopefully they will be.
Hopefully we will get a governor ah next time that does understand the Constitution,understands the importance of oversight.
But this really doesn't apply just to Landry, this particular bill.
I don't think any governor should be appointing oh any statewide elected official in ourstate.

(01:14:30):
They should all be directly accountable to the people.
100 % and Chris I think it's probably oh did I lose my I lost my brilliant thought therehmm let's see
214.
But that's exactly what came into my head, Danielle, when Karla was talking about theappointed position, utilities positions in the other states.

(01:14:52):
I was thinking of 214.
Mm-hmm.
Yeah, exactly.
Now, carrying on, Chris, unless my other thought recirculates, which it very well may atsome point, uh Senate Bill 216 by Senator Valerie Hodges.
This is her bill uh that would tighten up contracting with the OTD, create someincentives, some disincentives.

(01:15:17):
try and create some efficiencies.
It passed the Senate floor unanimously.
So there's something, there are a handful of things that everyone can agree on.
And DOTD's inefficiency in completing state road projects and the waste of money and theunnecessary delays, that's something I think everybody can agree on.
And this bill addresses those issues.

(01:15:39):
So fortunately it passed, it will go on to the House committee now and it should getthrough.
Yeah.
Okay.
And her other bill, Chris, her Senate Bill 226, the one that got gutted and they treatedher so mercilessly terrible on the Senate floor and in the Judiciary A committee, um it

(01:16:00):
hasn't been called back up, right?
been called back up yet.
You know, that that bill was, as you know, gutted ah significantly, and it's not beencalled back up on the Senate floor since she tried to present it a few days ago.
So I don't know what's going to happen to the bill in its current form, Danielle.
ah I don't I don't really know what what it accomplishes at this point, but we'll see.

(01:16:21):
And there's still a faint hope that some of the provisions in her original bill could bereturned on the Senate floor.
Certainly, it's something to hope for.
I'm not particularly optimistic about it this point.
Yeah.
Okay.
Now over to what happened in Senate and governmental affairs this week, Chris, this one, Idon't know if you've heard back from anyone.

(01:16:42):
I know you were putting some questions out to a few folks because we were uh unclear onhow or why this uh vote went down the way it did.
House Bill 216 by Representative Steve Jackson seemed to be just simply a uh transparencybill about the recording of meetings on the Board of Ethics.
which we're supportive of.

(01:17:03):
However, it passed, but some really great conservatives that we have a lot of respect forvoted against it, which raised some flags for us as to why the bill um got, why they voted
against it, that something else must have got shoved in there that we missed.
um This was on the house floor, correct?

(01:17:28):
It was, yeah, that was exactly on the House floor.
It passed 87 to 13.
And like I said, there were a lot of great conservatives voting against it, including
Beryl Amedee's position on it in this entry, because she did respond.
Her position was, ethics hearings are not the same as legislative hearings where thepublic needs as much input as possible in the lawmaking process.

(01:17:53):
She said, this was our main concern that by mandating live broadcasts and accessiblearchives of public meetings could be used to bring raw investigative material and
accusations to light.
before they've been investigated for the purpose
Oh, so if there's a criminal matter then, um and it goes to the ethics committee first,then it would kind of violate some of their privacy.

(01:18:19):
Okay.
of acquiring video of smears and accusations, not a good idea as written.
In other words, I think her concern is that the investigative process itself, while theethics board is having hearings and discussions to determine whether or not they need to
bring charges against somebody, that those record that that should not be broadcast to thepublic.

(01:18:46):
it would usurp their due process, I guess, in a way.
exactly, because they're just considering and baseless allegations and accusations andsmears could be accessed by the public in that situation and used to defame people in
situations where the ethics board may ultimately decide there's nothing here.
We don't need to be bringing charges on this.

(01:19:07):
And so why should the public be aware of that?
ah And I do understand that.
I think there's a privacy issue there.
But I think that if the bill could be amended,
ah that says at a certain point, the meetings should be broadcast to the public.
Maybe the decision, if they have a decision, why they made the decision, that meetingshould be aired to the public, things like that.

(01:19:35):
But I do agree here, Danielle, that a blanket transparency bill at every stage of anethics case, investigation, uh even pre-charging.
I understand the privacy concerns there.
Yeah, because if mean, if some of those videos get out and into the court of publicopinion before they get into the court of law, that causes a lot of problems for the

(01:20:00):
defendant, right?
mean.
exactly.
And you know, like Ray Donovan said, you know, when he went to a jury trial and, know, wasacquitted on all counts after scurrilous accusations to be made against him, he said,
well, thank you for acquitting.
Now, where do I go to get my reputation back?
So I think maybe that's what Representative Amadei's concern is here.

(01:20:22):
Yeah.
Okay, Chris, House Bill 577 by Rep.
Darryl Desatel.
We hate this one.
um It's the one that would give Secretary Landry carte blanche to get whatever machine shewants at whatever cost it seems um and directly procure instead of speaking or involving
the public in any way, form or doing the competitive bidding.

(01:20:45):
And you can add to that.
But it was reported favorably from Senate and Governmental Affairs.
So last stop.
His next stop, which is the Senate floor.
And Senator Flora, yeah, this was very interesting.
There was some very strong testimony uh in Senate Governmental Affairs yesterday,Danielle, against this bill, and it was a real privilege to testify against it.

(01:21:06):
And even though the bill got out of committee, Nancy Landrieu, on the record, uh becauseof questions, direct questions from Senator Maguiz, uh made some very significant
concessions.
I mean, she stated on the record yesterday that
no component parts and no voting computers at all will be acquired from any foreigncountry, not just foreign adversary, but any foreign country.

(01:21:32):
ah And she acknowledged that.
She also agreed with Senator Miguel to have direct communications between the SenateGovernmental Affairs Committee, the chairman, and even Senator Miguel, her office and the
Trump administration.
regarding this procurement process and President Trump's EOs.

(01:21:54):
Because as you know, Danielle, uh Secretary Landry has been representing repeatedly overthe last couple of weeks that the Trump administration is fully on board with her
investing $100 million in a computer-based voting system, despite the existence of anexecutive order right now that's ordering a full audit and investigation into all

(01:22:14):
electronic voting systems in the country.
We find that difficult to believe.
She says she has a letter from the Trump administration that that's telling her, go ahead,do what you got to do.
Proceed.
You have our blessing.
But we haven't seen that letter.
We don't know what it says.
And certainly we have a hard time believing that the Trump administration hasunconditionally endorsed uh her taking an action that directly contradicts what Trump has

(01:22:42):
repeatedly said about electronic voting, what Tulsi Gabbard has said.
what Elon Musk has said and what all the cyber experts know.
So the bottom line is they're going to have to, they're going to set up calls whereSenator McGeas and members of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee can be on the call
with members of the Trump administration and the secretary of state to clarify theseissues that I don't think she was happy about that.

(01:23:04):
ah
I love it.
absolutely love it.
Thank you, Senator Miguel, for that.
I really appreciate it because I don't...
I just feel that her position is misrepresenting reality.
That's what I think.
think it is too.
the final concession that she made, oh, she admitted in her testimony yesterday that,Senator McGeis asked her directly, at what point during the process, procurement process

(01:23:33):
under this bill, will the public be able to have input on this and be able to address theissues that concern them regarding this process?
And she said, I really don't know the answer to that.
You'll have to ask the Division of Administration, DOA.
So she didn't even know at what point the public will be able to uh you know, input in theprocess and how the public can participate in this procurement process.

(01:23:59):
So at that point, Senator Miguez insisted to her and she agreed to it that there will bewell advertised opportunities for the public to participate in this process, express our
opinions regarding her decision and the status of the process.
So that's another concession that she made yesterday on the record.

(01:24:22):
while the bill passed out and we'll go to the Senate, and also Danielle, there's a chancethat this could still be killed on the Senate floor.
So.
uh
Miguez and others vote against it in committee or did they vote for it?
What happened was Senator McGeas made a motion to delay the vote on this because of allthe testimony in there.

(01:24:44):
He made a motion to delay the vote.
ah That motion was defeated two to uh four.
All the Democrats voted against it and Senator Greg Miller voted against it.
He's on the committee.
He's been carrying Nancy Landry's water the entire session.
So he voted against it.
So three Democrats.

(01:25:05):
and Miller, the Republican Miller, voted against delaying the vote on it.
Senator McGeas and Senator Kline Facey both voted to delay it.
So those are the two votes.
And there were two Republicans who were not in the room, uh Senator Reese and SenatorWomack.
If they had been in there and voted on it, then it would have been a 4-4 tie.

(01:25:26):
The motion still wouldn't have carried because you have to have a majority to carry it.
But it's interesting that those two Republicans were not in the room.
And I believe they were there.
for the roll call.
if they had been there and they had voted for it, then that would have forced the issue toSenator Klein-Peter, who chairs the committee, correct?
So there was a chance.
There was a chance if they had been in there, but certainly the fact that they were absentfor that vote suggests that they are hearing from the citizens on this issue.

(01:25:56):
And they, rather than vote against that motion, they would just, you know, rather, theythink it's better just to be absent than to affirmatively vote no on something.
And I think it may, but they're wrong.
And I think it does have to do with all the communications that have gone.
to that committee over the last couple of weeks on that bill, hundreds of them from us,from our call to action and from others.

(01:26:17):
And Senator McGeas specifically mentioned all the communications ah that he's received onthis.
So the calls to action really are working.
They are.
They absolutely are.
And a big thank you to Senator Miguez and Senator Facy for standing for the people andstanding for the voice of the people and the right for us to have a say in the process.

(01:26:39):
And Senator Kleinpeter, because at the end, Senator Kleinpeter, the chairman said that Iwant everybody to know here and I hear the testimony here and I appreciate your being here
and I want everybody to know that I am committed as chairman of this committee to full andcomplete transparency in this process.
So they are hearing us.
Well, great.

(01:27:01):
Well, perhaps Senator Miguez will give a rousing speech on the Senate floor and kill itonce and for all.
absolutely could happen.
Okay.
Now, um okay.
So also we, let's see this.
I'm trying to get my wits about me here.
um Senator Patrick McMath's SB 14 passed House Health and Welfare this week on Wednesday,12 to nothing.

(01:27:30):
And so it's headed now to the House floor.
headed to the House floor.
And I think, Danielle, not to preempt you here, uh I believe that because of McMath'sbill, which is a really big bill, which received national attention, uh and as you said,
it's a very broad-based nutrition bill uh for our students to get all the garbage out ofthe food that they consume, uh that took up a lot of time in the House Health and Welfare

(01:27:55):
Committee, which is the reason why Senator Faisies
SB2, uh I believe that's his fluoride bill.
And then SB19, his ivermectin over-the-counter bill, were delayed in House Health andWelfare.
And he believes that both of those two important bills will be scheduled for one day nextweek in House Health and Welfare, probably Tuesday.

(01:28:18):
But that ivermectin bill, Daniel, imagine the number of people who could have been savedduring COVID if they had had ready access over-the-counter to ivermectin.
Yeah, yeah.
Well, and there wasn't the censorship and yeah, yeah, yeah.
There was a lot there, but this certainly would have gone a long way because I know thatthere were plenty of people who wanted it and ah even if they could find a doctor who

(01:28:46):
would write it for them, the big box uh pharmacies wouldn't fill it.
Well, exactly.
So this legislation is really, really important.
And I have to give a reiterate my shout out to Dr.
Ralph Abrams, who is the surgeon general who has testified very effectively.
ah I believe I know he testified next to Senator Faisy in favor of the Ivermectin bill.

(01:29:10):
And I believe he also testified on the fluoride bill, but I know he testified onIvermectin.
So Dr.
Abraham is strongly in support.
of getting ivermectin to citizens over the counter without any bureaucratic red tape.
Yeah, and whether he testified in favor of Senator Facy's ban on fluoride or not, he didweigh in on Twitter.

(01:29:30):
I saw that and he said, you know, the science is out basically, the science is there andwe have a choice to make.
What do we value more, IQ points or teeth?
Yeah.
Is that what he said?
And I think he's right.
think he's absolutely right.
There are other ways to protect your teeth.
So, and you can protect your teeth on your own time.

(01:29:54):
What do t-shirts say?
Destroy your gut, protect your teeth.
Terrible.
All right.
Okay, Chris, there's a couple other bills we want to talk about.
One is uh one that's been at the center of a lot of our conversation today, is, uh or atleast, I guess, yeah, it has been House Bill 601 by Representative Brett Gaiman.

(01:30:18):
And this would be uh dealing with eminent domain rules for carbon dioxide.
we believe that that bill uh will come back for a vote on the floor next week.
There are some iterations that are being worked on with that, ah and we still have ourcall to action up on it.

(01:30:39):
And, you know, we feel cautiously optimistic that there's going to be a good result onthat one way the other on 601.
Yeah, so I'm sure he's still drumming up support for it.
So the more that you can reach out to your representative and pile up their inbox and letthem know that you're watching their vote, the better off we're going to be on this one.

(01:31:00):
and please go to lacag.org and do the call to action.
Do all the calls to action while you're up there, but specifically on this bill, it's HB601.
Yeah, I'll put that up there for people.
LCAG.org forward slash action dash center, but just go to LCAG.org and you can see theaction button.

(01:31:21):
A lot of action.
Speaking of action, ah early next week, we expect House Bill 386 by Representative RaymondCruz.
This is his gold and silver as.
legal currency, not just legal tender, but legal currency bill.
It did pass and I think we may have mentioned that on Tuesday, Chris, because I think itpassed out of House and Governmental Affairs or Commerce, probably House Commerce on

(01:31:50):
Monday.
So I think we would have reported on that on Tuesday, but it's heading to the House floor.
Yeah, seven to six.
vote uh and Dixon Macon uh to his credit switched his vote from the first time the billwent before the committee uh to a yes vote uh and Representative Domaine and Abear and a
number of other Republicans still voted no on it.

(01:32:13):
But this is going to the House floor for a vote and Representative Cruz has asked Lecag todo a floor note on this because he believes that
big bankers are going to be in there against this legislation doing floor notes opposed.
So we're going to do a strong floor note in favor of HB 386.

(01:32:33):
And I'll encourage what we need to adjust the call to action on that one, Danielle, to goto the house floor, but we have a call to action for HB 386.
So go on there later today, please, and do that call to action at lacag.org in favor of HB386.
to make gold and silver recognized as transactional currency in the state of Louisiana.

(01:32:57):
Really important bill.
Yeah, it's a citizens' rights bill.
I mean, really, it's a free speech bill, if you think about it.
How you pay is a matter of free speech in a way.
And, Chris, I think the fact that the bankers are still lining up against this, the peopleon that committee, the representatives on that committee who refuse to change their vote

(01:33:18):
despite Representative Cruz's concessions.
just goes to show that the arguments against this were completely disingenuous and reallywhat it's about is not wanting the people to have the choice and the freedom to pay the
way they want to pay.
Yeah, and it's about economic liberty.
This is about choice and economic liberty.
It's the bottom line.

(01:33:39):
So, know, Representative Cruz, like I said, specifically called me two or three days agoand asked us to do a floor note on this because he expects opposition on the House floor.
Yeah.
Well, I'm glad you'll be there.
And then last up on my list, Chris, is House Bill 400 by Representative Emily Genevieve.
I believe you said this one is set for floor debate on May 27th.

(01:34:01):
This is her parental rights bill where parents get to regain control of their kids'medical decisions.
Yes, and this shouldn't be controversial at this point, Danielle.
It just should not be.
And it hasn't been so far, thankfully, with the exception, you know, I guess they pausedit for some work around a couple of issues, but those seem to have gotten worked out.

(01:34:27):
Yeah, they seem to have gotten worked out.
You know, there was an issue related to abusive situations and whether or not, you know,how you provide in a situation where a minor is being abused by his parents or his legal
guardians, and yet he has to disclose to them that he's going to seek some help for theirabuse.
ah And so the bill had to provide for that exception and some other things.

(01:34:50):
this bill should pass, Danielle, because parents and guardians have a right to know whatis going on with their minors when they're
considering seeking medical care or medical treatment.
It seems like a no-brainer.
So I'm going to be keeping a very close eye on HB 400 to see if there are any Republicanswho vote against this bill on the House floor.

(01:35:10):
This is too important to play around with.
Yeah, it is.
And Chris, we're really getting into crunch time now.
We are headed into the ah last three weeks of session next week, and then we have two moreweeks.
So I believe that we should be expecting things, things that start looking like they'regetting hung up in one house or in the House or in the Senate.

(01:35:35):
um We need to really be pushing hard on because ah if we want to see them move.
forward because this is the time that bills start dying.
Good bills die in this period of time.
Yeah, and there's one other bill, Danielle, that I wanted to mention to you that wehaven't even talked about, but it's HB 585.
And it is a bill that simply would require landowners to be given advance notice toanybody who has an interest in their property about

(01:36:11):
If somebody is planning on using their property for carbon capture sequestration, prior toengaging in those activities, they have to give the landowner and any person who has a
vested interest in the property advance notice of what they are planning to do.
That's what the bill would have done.
HB 585.

(01:36:32):
The bill passed in the House 68 to 24, but there were 17 Republicans.
17 Republicans who voted against even that provision.
And Jessica Domaine was one of them.
HB 585.
And I don't have it pulled up right now, but it's important.
HB 585.

(01:36:52):
So.
it up real quick.
And Chris, um the other one I was hoping you would talk about is the one, the two billsyou referenced on social media yesterday giving Representative Mandy Landry a shout out,
which is a very rare occurrence.
So would you mention what her bill would do that you were uh applauding yesterday?

(01:37:13):
Yes, Representative Landry authored a bill so many times in the criminal process,Danielle, when a case is being prosecuted.
Serious cases.
Things happen in that case.
Plea deals are discussed.
Cases are continued.
Discovery decisions are made about what can be introduced as evidence or whatnot.

(01:37:36):
Just the whole procedural posture of a case.
And the victims and the victims' families in many of these serious felony cases are leftin the dark about what is going on with their case.
And it deeply affects them.
And these families have often been traumatized uh by these criminal acts.
And right now, they often do not know what is going on with those cases.

(01:38:01):
And so, Representative Landry's bill requires electronic publication of
every development in criminal cases to the victims, to the victims' families, and even tothe public because they'll be publicly accessible.
And I think that's really important, particularly, obviously, if you're a victim or thevictim's family in these cases, you have a right to know what's going on.

(01:38:26):
ah You're the one who will be living with the effects of this criminality for the rest ofyour life.
You have a right to know how it's being prosecuted and what the posture of the case is.
And interestingly enough, Danielle,
uh, representative Ville, who is not often aligned with representative Landry added anamendment to the bill on the floor that would also require, uh, public notice.

(01:38:50):
Anytime there's a prison escape, because you know what happened in New Orleans, there werenine or 10 pardon criminals who escaped prison in New Orleans.
It took, it was 10 hours, 10 hours passed before
Anybody, the media, the public, anybody was notified that you have 10 hardened criminalsrunning around on the streets that just broke out of prison.

(01:39:13):
Did you know that?
I only know it because I saw that on your post last night, but thank you.
Thank you, Representative Villio.
That's an important addition, apparently, that shouldn't be...
I mean, we shouldn't need to tell them that they need to tell the public obvious.
It should be...
I mean, it's kind of like a reverse 911, right?

(01:39:33):
The prisoners escaped, call everyone.
I mean, I think it's maybe there's some, oh who knows, Democrat legislators who knows whojust think that we should, the public should be notified by the escapees.
Yeah, maybe so when they come banging on your door.
but yeah.
we want to come to your house next.
uh So we just want to let you know that we're out.

(01:39:55):
Maybe that's the deal.
One other, so that's good.
Congratulations to Representative Landry and Representative Villio for including thatamendment on the bill.
And one other one, uh HB 64 by Representative Mike Johnson.
His bill uh that will clarify and codify

(01:40:15):
the authority of the attorney general and the governor to negate or reject any agreementsbetween any local government or any municipality with the federal government that centers
on or implicates our sovereign rights as a state under the 10th Amendment.

(01:40:35):
The attorney general and the governor have plenary authority to reject those agreementsand the parties to those agreements
have to advise uh the attorney general and the governor about the nature of thoseagreements so that a decision can be made.
This is just a very good bill on sovereignty and it reasserts our absolute right tobasically nullify any agreement that violates our 10th Amendment rights uh of state

(01:41:04):
sovereignty.
So Representative Mike Johnson's very good bill and Representative, mean, Attorney GeneralMurrell uh was behind that legislation as well.
It's a good bill.
So shout out to Attorney General Mural and Representative Mike Johnson.
Yeah.
And Chris, maybe just going back now to House Bill 585, I believe you said, byRepresentative McCormick, the bill that um would provide advance notice to any landowner

(01:41:33):
who's in the crosshairs of CCS.
Let me, I can read to you those who voted against it, um the Republicans.
Let me say that it does start with the speaker yet again, voting when he did not need to.
to weigh in on that.
then, okay, I'm not necessarily gonna remember who the Democrats and Republicans are inthis.

(01:41:55):
So I may just say them all, but um Barrault, I believe that's Stephanie, huh?
I'm pretty sure.
Beth Billings, Boyer, Davis, Domaine, Freeman, I believe she's a Democrat, Freiburg,Glorioso, Hilferty, Hughes, Ilg, Larvadane, Marcel,

(01:42:19):
McMaken, Miller, Newell, Angeran, Schlegel, Spell, Saint Blanc, Thomas, Villio, andZerang.
So a lot from the Bayou are represented in that space of not wanting to give you, notwanting to give you advance notice that you, your private property is even in the
crosshairs of uh one of these scam artist companies.

(01:42:43):
Yeah.
And a number of Democrats, Danielle, joined the Republicans in voting for this bill toprovide basic notice to landowners when CCS projects are about to be on your property.
Democrats who voted yes, as they should have.
uh Adams, Boyd, Brass.
um

(01:43:06):
Let's see who else here.
ah Chasson, Travis Johnson, Lafleur, Mandy Landry, Mandy Landry, ah Lions, RepresentativeLions, ah Owen Shuner's, Knox.

(01:43:29):
Willard, Young.
So a number of Democrats voted in favor of this.
And specifically, Danielle, since you named all the ones who voted against it, I just wantto name the Republicans who voted against this on the floor.
The Speaker, Barrault, Billings, ah Davis.
Is Boyer a Republican?

(01:43:51):
I don't know.
Davis, Domaine, Freiburg, Glorioso, Hilferty, Ild, McMakin.
uh Orgeron, Schlegel, Spell, St.
Blas, Thomas, Villio, and Zerang.
Republicans who voted against, 17 Republicans who voted against this bill to give thisnotice to landowners.

(01:44:13):
It's important.
I think frankly, it's despicable.
It is despicable, but the positive side is that the bill is advancing and it should begoing over to the Senate, ah what Senate natural resources next, I would imagine.
Yes, that's where it'll be going and hopefully it passes through over there.
And thank God for all the Republicans who supported this.

(01:44:36):
Yeah, absolutely.
And the Democrats, much appreciation there.
Yep.
Democrats who never vote with conservative Republicans come over and vote for a piece oflegislation, I mean, what does that tell you about the Republicans who opposed it?
It's almost like we've talked about before, Danielle, they don't want to give even theslightest concession to private property ah to the rights of landowners.

(01:45:05):
Not even the slightest concessions can be made.
And that's why I think the ire of the citizens is up so much right now on this issue ofCCS.
because it begs the question, why, why won't you listen to us?
Not even a tiny bit.
Are you being paid?
I mean, what is, what is it in?
What is there in it for you that you refuse to listen to the people who put you in thatposition?

(01:45:30):
Exactly, exactly.
Anyway, time will tell, time will tell.
ah
and Daniel, I'm trying to think.
don't think there's anything else.
Oh, let's see, House Bill 615.
That's Representative Geymann's bill that would give local authority.

(01:45:52):
Yeah, and I'm trying to remember what happened with that, HB 615.
think it's...
well, it failed in the house on the house floor.
Remember?
He was supposed to try and bring it back though.
yeah, that's right.
That's exactly right.
And did we say uh how people voted on this?

(01:46:12):
We did?
Okay.
All right.
Just wanted to make sure that we said how people voted on this.
It failed a final passage uh in a, yeah, this is the one that failed 53 to 46.
Yeah.
Yeah.
So hopefully he's going to bring it back, but a lot of Republicans voted against thisbill.
to provide uh authority for local governments to establish the parameters and thepermitting process for these solar generation facilities.

(01:46:41):
So once again, Republicans uh killed some basic legislation to give some autonomy to localgovernments on this Green New Deal garbage.
Yeah, which should already be the de facto stance.
Well, exactly, exactly.
One day we're going to have to do a study, Danielle, that really compares line by line thecampaign platforms of some of these Republicans when they're running for office versus

(01:47:07):
their voting records after they get there.
I think it would be an interesting study.
I think it'll be an interesting study.
It's probably not a very complex one at that.
All right, Chris.
Well, I think that rounds us out for today.
On Tuesday, we will be back at eight, letting you know what's coming for the week ahead.
I expect the next three weeks to be fast and furious.

(01:47:30):
Probably you do as well.
Anything you're looking forward to next week that we haven't mentioned?
I'm looking forward to all of it.
I'm looking forward, one of the things I'm looking forward to is the floor note that we'regonna do on representative Cruz gold and silver bill.
Because even though it doesn't give us everything that we wanted in the original versionof the bill, it's still a step in the right direction.

(01:47:55):
ah And I think it will be uh habituating the state and the legislature to taking anotherstep uh next year on it.
But it's important that this pass.
There's a reason why the bankers are opposed to this.
And it's, again, the same reason we've always given because they feel like they deserve tohave the monopoly on how we conduct our economic activities.

(01:48:19):
And it's unfortunate.
enough for us um to figure out who testified from the banking association on behalf uhagainst this, right?
And then also look it up on uh the Secretary of State's website, how much money the banksdonated to campaigns and what campaigns they donated to and see, you know.

(01:48:45):
if that's got anything to do with the intractable position of some of theserepresentatives.
Louisiana Bankers Association.
I know that that's the name of it and I know that they've testified against it.
And so, yeah, it should be relatively easy to find, relatively easy to follow the money.
be an interesting data point to put in your floor note.

(01:49:08):
You know, absolutely.
That's a great thought.
And also before we go, Danielle, I want to encourage everyone beginning at about oneo'clock today, 1230 or one today to go to lacag.org.
We'll have the calls to action updated, the targeted recipients, and please do all thosecall to actions.
There's about eight of them up there now, eight or nine.

(01:49:31):
It takes about two minutes to do them.
We encourage you to customize your own email uh if you want to.
and do those calls to action because I'm telling you it makes a big difference.
Yeah, it absolutely does.
And we are making sure, and I think the legislature is increasingly aware of the power ofthe voice of the people and La Cag is a venue through that.

(01:49:57):
thank you for being our voice down there, Chris.
We really appreciate that.
I know that people...
being on the State of Freedom because Danielle, we're moving, uh expanding, because peopleare sharing and people are listening to the State of Freedom because they understand that
they're not going to get the unvarnished truth in any other venue than ours because wehave no issue telling the truth and that's very, very important.

(01:50:22):
So continue to share and subscribe to the State of Freedom.
Go to lacag.org and when you're doing your calls to action, join uh lacag.org.
because it takes resources to continue to level the playing field.
There are so many special interests down there at the legislature who are buying these,these legislators, the deep pocketed lobbyists, and we are fighting only for ordinary

(01:50:46):
regular Louisiana citizens.
So go join us and support us at lacag.org and continue to share the state of freedombecause Danielle, we are making a difference.
You are right.
We are.
Yeah.
And they're not going to shut us down.
They're not going to silence us.
We're only going to get louder and louder.
Mark my words, Chris.

(01:51:10):
Alright, love you, have a great day.

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Bookmarked by Reese's Book Club

On Purpose with Jay Shetty

Dateline NBC

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}#302 The Fight for Free Soil & Sovereignty w/ Karla Lems

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}Bookmarked by Reese's Book Club

On Purpose with Jay Shetty

Dateline NBC

All Episodes

#302 The Fight for Free Soil & Sovereignty w/ Karla Lems

Bookmarked by Reese's Book Club